Why isn't research changing the world? | Iain White | TEDxUniversity of Waikato

Key Concepts

• Crisis knowledge: The state of research fields being in a permanent state of crisis, deteriorating, and unlikely to change.
• Science as usual: Existing ways of knowing and doing in science, often centuries old, that may contribute to persistent crises.
• Cognitive diversity: The breadth of knowledge and expertise within a university, encompassing different disciplines, perspectives, and backgrounds.
• Over-documenting and under-doing: The tendency of academics to focus on research and publication within their specific fields, leading to fragmentation and a lack of impactful action.
• Disruptive vs. Incremental Science: Disruptive science significantly changes society, while incremental science makes smaller, less impactful contributions.

The Paradox of Academic Success and Societal Crisis

The speaker begins by confessing a sense of failure in their academic career, despite contributing to knowledge generation. They observe that many research fields are in a perpetual state of crisis (housing, climate, health, biodiversity, inequality, infrastructure), leading to a feeling of documenting decline rather than driving transformative change.

• Example: The speaker recounts a conversation with a colleague who expressed feeling like they had spent their career "documenting decline."
• Key Point: This feeling, while potentially depressing, can be energizing and lead to new research questions.

Despite this sense of failure, the speaker acknowledges the stunning success of universities and science in generating knowledge.

• Fact: The number of publications globally increases by 8-9% annually, doubling roughly every decade.
• Argument: More knowledge should lead to better-informed policy and improved social outcomes.

However, research indicates that science has become less disruptive, meaning it's less likely to significantly change society. This creates a paradox: high productivity in knowledge generation alongside a failure to address the crises being researched.

Reasons for the Paradox

The speaker proposes several reasons for this paradox:

1. Lack of Time: Researchers are too busy with their own work to read and amplify the voices of others.
2. Information Overload: The sheer volume of publications makes it difficult to keep track of new research, leading to established researchers being cited more often while radical or emerging voices struggle for attention.
   • Analogy: The speaker compares the situation to the overwhelming amount of content available on streaming services, making it difficult to stay informed.
3. Structure and Incentives: The way science is organized and incentivized may lead to "over-documenting and under-doing," with academics working in silos and creating further fragmentation.

Addressing the Paradox: A Call for Change

The speaker suggests several ways universities can respond to address this paradox:

1. Openly Acknowledge Failure

Universities tend to focus on success, but failure is a creative and disruptive force that can lead to reflection, accountability, and reorganization.

• Argument: Acknowledging failure breaks the "treadmill of activity" and allows for critical self-assessment.

2. Foster Cognitive Diversity

Universities need to tap into the breadth of knowledge and expertise within their walls by breaking down disciplinary boundaries.

• Argument: Crises often exist outside of any single discipline, requiring collaboration from diverse minds within and beyond the university.
• Concept: The speaker introduces the "Goldilocks zone" of science collaboration: expertise that is neither too narrow (leading to similar perspectives) nor too diverse (lacking common ground).

3. Promote Collaboration

Universities and governments need to do more to foster collaboration within and beyond the university.

• Argument: Universities are uniquely positioned to facilitate collaboration due to the diverse range of expertise housed within a relatively small space.
• Example: The speaker highlights the potential for collaboration between engineers, scientists, lawyers, indigenous researchers, economists, psychologists, and students within a university.

Conclusion

The speaker concludes by urging academics to consider "science as usual" and acknowledge the simultaneous existence of success and failure. Acknowledging failure is crucial for learning, reflection, and reorganization. The speaker emphasizes the importance of addressing persistent crises and reorganizing resources in response. The talk ends with a humorous reference to disaster movies, highlighting the importance of listening to scientists.

• Quote: "At the start of every Disaster Movie there's a scientist being ignored."